Do the Democrats Want to Lose?

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Do the Democrats want to lose? That seems an odd question to ask. But they do it so well you begin to wonder. Now, they are about to lose to Bush and the grossly unpopular Republicans again on FISA and telecom immunity. But are they really losing? That depends on what your objective is. Let me explain.

The Republican Party is in a death spiral right now and they don't even realize it. Sure, they understand something is wrong but they have no idea what the real cause is. Most of them are still arguing that they failed in veering away from hard right-wing, conservative principles. That's exactly wrong.

The problem for the Republicans is that they have been going to the far right for far too long. Here is what the Republican Party and all of Washington is having trouble accepting - we are not fundamentally a center-right country, let alone how far right the Republicans have taken us. The idea that we are center-right has been conventional wisdom for so long that no one has remembered to challenge that assumption.

In fact, the American people love their Social Security, believe that a community should help its most downtrodden, and think it is the government's responsibility to help its citizens in times of need. They do not believe that every man should fend for himself and the only remedy government should offer a man in need is a healthy pair of bootstraps. The American people are simply not that cold and uncaring.

Some argue that they should be. That the best remedy is tough love. These people are usually already rich, and almost certainly Republican. And that's the problem. The Republican Party has lost the ability to understand and empathize with the average American voter. They can't feel our pain.

So, this leads to a situation where the Democratic Party - seemingly through no action of its own - is about to be the beneficiary of an enormous majority in Congress. It's tempting to say they fumbled, bumbled and mumbled their way into this good fortune because it certainly appeared so.

But let me ask a radical question: Did the Democrats choose to be incompetent in the face of gross Republican mismanagement over the last seven years? The question everyone has been asking for a long time now is how can they keep losing to the most unpopular president in United States history? How can a party on the verge of historic political victories not be able to defeat a enormously unpopular president in his lame duck year? How is that possible?

Here is an answer people haven't considered enough - they want to lose. You can call it strategic weakness. They never wanted to get out of Iraq. They never wanted to fix any of the problems we have in the country now. Instead they wanted to let them fester into open sores until the American people got so fed up with it that they threw out the Republican bums who were in charge.

I think we give far too much deference to our politicians, as if they are the most magnanimous, well-intentioned folks who always put the needs of their constituents first. The press has become far too credulous. Politicians are often the worst kind of self-aggrandizing, blowhards. And the one thing they care most about is their own power.

Yes, there are well-intentioned, principled politicians. Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted against the Patriot Act when ninety-nine other senators didn't dare question it. Tom Coburn (R-OK) votes down bills based on his fiscal principles all the time. You might or might not agree with the politics of these legislators but there is something to admire about them. However, they are certainly the exception.

What progressive activists couldn't understand about the Democrats when the party refused to fight back on Iraq after the 2006 elections is that these politicians had different objectives than them. The goal of the activists was policy - they wanted to get out of Iraq. The goal of the Democratic Party was politics - they wanted to win more elections. Those are two totally different objectives.

So, as their base thought they were losing, in fact, the Democratic Party was winning. No, we didn't get out of Iraq, but the Republicans did crash themselves on the shores of this disastrous policy. By sticking so diligently to their far right positions on Iraq and just about everything else (S-CHIP, Webb's GI Bill, etc.), the Republicans assured their ultimate demise. All the Democrats had to do was step out of the way. The activists saw this as weakness and acquiescence. The Democratic politicians saw it as an opportunity.

This gambit seems to being paying off handsomely so far. The Democratic Party picked up 36 seats in the House and Senate in 2006 and they have added three more in recent special elections. The Democrats have not suffered any significant wounds for their completely ineffectual challenge to the president, while the Republicans are on the verge of being tarred and feathered and run out of town.

Political strategists will study this for years to come - the win by losing strategy. Only a Democrat could have come up with that.

Young Turks on You Tube

< Hoa Lo head: We didn't torture McCain | Cenk is my hero >
 Display:

...the more they seem the same with very few exceptions...

by MedfordTim on 06/24/2008 02:17:08 PM EST


The Democrats try to gain and maintain power by doing enough to keep a majority happy with their politicians.  They appease the voters in hopes they will win elections.

The Republicans just brazenly lie and abuse power and stuff as much money into their pockets as fast as they can until they lose an election by a margin so wide they can't cheat to win it. 

Neither one (the parties, not the individual politicians, per se) are particularly interested in changing the system.  One is just going to try and throw us a bone to win, the other is going to lie, cheat and strongarm us to win.

The End. 

by ProfRich on 06/24/2008 02:46:44 PM EST


In the last 60 years, how many Dem and Rep presidential candidates have won a plurality (greater than 50%) of the vote?

by KenTX on 06/24/2008 03:11:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
well umm I guess that is relevant to the conversation somehow?

by z1p101 on 06/24/2008 06:43:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]

The numbers since 1932:

13 of the last 19 elections have seen one candidate get 50%+.

Dems have won with 50%+ 6 of the 10 elections they have won in that span.

Reps have got 50%+ in 7 of their 9 victories.  Not sure what the hell the point of that was since whether or not the winner gets over half is almost entirely determined by the presence of a remotely decent third party candidate and not so much by popularity of the winner but ok.

And of course Ken tried to choose 1948 as his cuttoff year for no other reason than it generated the most GOP favorable stats.  I picked 1932 because I think we would generally agree that was the shift from old to new politics.  Or we could go from the great realignment of 1968.  1948 is just a sad attempt at hackwork.

If you want to ask the question who had the hardest time winning (which factors out third party candidates somewhat) you look at margin of victory making the poorest performances by a winner in order: Bush (2000)  -.52, JFK (1960) 0.16%,  Carter (1976) 2%, Bush (2004) 2.46%.  The next is Truman at 4, everyone else is above five.  FDR in 36 tops the list at 24%.

So, yeah, Bush sucked twice and JFK barely won, Carter was weak.  FDR was the most dominant electoral force ever.  What was the point of all that? 

by ProfRich on 06/24/2008 10:48:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You keep referring to a "majority". In the last 60 years, Democrats have won greater than 50% of the popular vote only twice. LBJ in 1964 and Carter squeeked by with 50.1% in 1976. Sixty years is a long time for a majority of voters to prove they don't like liberalism.

by KenTX on 06/25/2008 08:41:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Ignoring your continued abuse of the word "liberalism," this point of yours lacks structural integrity.

Greater than 50%?  Numbers don't work like that, Ken.  If Obama got 45% of the vote, McCain got 30% and the remaining 25% wrote in "that dude who sings 'Chocoloate Rain,'" who would you chalk the election up to?  Are you going to somehow split the presidency between co-presidents McCain and Zonday?  I don't think McCain would go for that, even if beggars can't be choosers.  Here, let me open a new package of straws so that you can grasp at them. 

by OneHitKill on 06/25/2008 09:11:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I should have the job of parsing out stats for the Republicans so I can try to make them look better.  Its easy and I have a natural inclination towards that sort of work.

Unfortunately I also have a natural inclination to some sort of objective reality.

Here are some other ways to look at the last 60 years (and  76 years since that at least makes some sense).

In the last 60 years the American voters have given control of the Senate to the Dems 18 times, the Pubs 10.

Since 1932 that becomes D-27, R-11.

In the hosue since 1952, D-21, R-7. 

Since 1932, D-30, R-8.

Senates with 67 or more seats to one party (override veto).

D-34, 36, 38, 64.   R-None (ever!)

Filibuster proof majority (60+)

D-32-40, 58-66, 74-76  R-None (1906-1908 only time with 60+ Senators)

The House

Veto proof majorities- D- 32-36, 74-76   R-None!

Control of both houses

1952-D-18     R-7  Split-3 

1932- D-26   R-7   Split-5 

Moving on to a different subject let's talk about presidential approval ratings.  It has been a while since I did a lot of work on this, but if you look at average approval rating for presidents since 1932 the list looks like this:

1. FDR

2. JFK

3. Ike

4. Bush I (thanks to the 90%+ of the Gulf War)

5. Clinton

6. LBJ

7. Reagan

8. Nixon

9. Carter 

10. Ford

11. Truman

We are still waiting on the data for Bush II but he is going to struggle to beat out Carter.

So it will be 1, 2 and four of the top 6 are Dems.  Four of the bottom six will be Pubs.

I can go on all day.

So I guess y'all can decide.  Ken's one pathetic little manufactured stat created by an outside factor (3rd party candidates) and parsed for maximum Republican impact or all of this.  Let me know if you need more.

by ProfRich on 06/25/2008 11:14:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Consistent inability to poll greater than 50% of the electorate over the past 60 years is significant. Losing 7 out of the last 10 elections is significant. Losing a LANDSLIDE BLOWOUT in 5 out of the last 15 elections is significant.

by KenTX on 06/25/2008 11:38:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Is consistently losing congressional elections significant?

Doesn't help your side so I guess not, huh?

Is having dreadful approval ratings significant?

Doesn't help so no, huh?

As you know, I agree the country turned to the right in 1968.  Just like it had turned to the left in 1932.  But then again I am a interested in understanding the whys and wherefores and not just keeping score in the red team vs. blue team game.

It seems to me the this brand of conservatism has run its course.  Pack up your tent, Maguinn, its time for 40 years in the wilderness.  If (when?) Obama wins it will all the sudden be 6 of the last 10 for the Pubs.  Hell, right now its only 6 of 10 if you take out the stolen election.  Its only 4 of 10 if you take out the two everyone agrees Nixon cheated in!

The cons had thier day, just like the libs did before them.  The worms turns.  Its over for you and your kind (for now). 

And I ask again, why 1952 other than it makes for the prettiest numbers for you?  I say you have to use 1932 or 1968 as these were watershed years.  No one considers 1952 as such. 

by ProfRich on 06/25/2008 11:49:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Because hardly anyone alive today voted during the FDR war years. Those were different times. The Democrat Party was VASTLY different than the Democrat Party today. It wasn't anti-American.

by KenTX on 06/25/2008 12:21:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Like all those congressional voters who keep voting for Dem candidates for the Congress, huh?

Why 60?  Why not 70? Closer to average lifespan.  Why not 50?  40?

Nice try, but it is still pretty obvious this is just hack work. 

by ProfRich on 06/25/2008 12:38:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I think that part of what you are seeing here is that the Democrats are far more likely to assume a position that straddles the political spectrum, while in a general sense the Republicans will tend to tilt hard right bordering on extremism, which has become the overall party position.  This means that even a Democratic majority is going to define an ambiguous border that stretches from the far left to the right of center.  The right wingers don't tend to compromise while the left wingers sometimes will.  It is a matter of ridgidity.  Look at how the right clings doggedly to neocon principles even in the face of near catastrophic failures of government.  They think their candidate is too moderate, even as he bends himself into a pretzel to prove he's not.

I agree with you about telecomm immunity.  The Democratic senator in my state is the worst.  I can't stand her positions on a lot of topics but I have to vote for her because I have no other choice but a typical Republican who would fall to his knees and blow the CEO of Exxon at a moments notice.  However, I refuse to donate a nickel to her.  Instead I've taken to donating to senatorial campaigns in other states for candidates who show real guts.

by bfaul on 06/24/2008 08:06:05 PM EST


 Display: